Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Local politics help mitigate national polarization by focusing on concrete issues like infrastructure and community needs rather than divisive symbolic debates. A survey indicates that local officials experience less partisanship, as interpersonal connections foster recognition of shared interests. This suggests that reducing polarization is possible through collaboration and changes in election laws.
Lauren Hall, Rochester Institute of Technology
When it comes to national politics, Americans are fiercely divided across a range of issues, including gun control, election security and vaccines. It’s not new for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds over issues, but things have reached a point where even the idea of compromising appears to be anathema, making it more difficult to solve thorny problems.
But things are much less heated at the local level. A survey of more than 1,400 local officials by the Carnegie Corporation and CivicPulse found that local governments are “largely insulated from the harshest effects of polarization.” Communities with fewer than 50,000 residents proved especially resilient to partisan dysfunction.
Why this difference? As a political scientist, I believe that lessons from the local level not only open a window onto how polarization works but also the dynamics and tools that can help reduce it.
Local governments deal with concrete issues – sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.
By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.
Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them – imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.
These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.
Local officials, however, live among the human beings they represent, whose complexity defies caricature. Living and interacting in the same communities leads to greater recognition of shared interests and values, according to the Carnegie/CivicPulse survey.
Meaningful interaction with others, including partisans of the opposing party, reduces prejudice about them. Local government provides a natural space where identities overlap.
In national U.S. politics today, large groups of individuals are divided not only by party but a variety of other factors, including race, religion, geography and social networks. When these differences align with ideology, political disagreement can feel like an existential threat.
Such differences are not always as pronounced at the local level. A neighbor who disagrees about property taxes could be the coach of your child’s soccer team. Your fellow school board member might share your concerns about curriculum but vote differently in presidential elections.
These cross-cutting connections remind us that political opponents are not a monolithic enemy but complex individuals. When people discover they have commonalities outside of politics with others holding opposing views, polarization can decrease significantly.
Finally, most local elections are technically nonpartisan. Keeping party labels off ballots allows voters to judge candidates as individuals and not merely as Republicans or Democrats.
None of this means local politics are utopian.
Like water, polarization tends to run downhill, from the national level to local contests, particularly in major cities where candidates for mayor and other office are more likely to run as partisans. Local governments also see culture war debates, notably in the area of public school instruction.
Nevertheless, the relative partisan calm of local governance suggests that polarization is not inevitable. It emerges from specific conditions that can be altered.
Polarization might be reduced by creating more opportunities for cross-partisan collaboration around concrete problems. Philanthropists and even states might invest in local journalism that covers pragmatic governance rather than partisan conflict. More cities and counties could adopt changes in election law that would de-emphasize party labels where they add little information for voters.
Aside from structural changes, individual Americans can strive to recognize that their neighbors are not the cardboard cutouts they might imagine when thinking about “the other side.” Instead, Americans can recognize that even political opponents are navigating similar landscapes of community, personal challenges and time constraints, with often similar desires to see their roads paved and their children well educated.
The conditions shaping our interactions matter enormously. If conditions change, perhaps less partisan rancor will be the result.
Lauren Hall, Associate professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Peter McGraw discusses the increasing prevalence of solo living and its implications for businesses, particularly during Valentine’s Day, which typically emphasizes couples. Despite many individuals enjoying activities alone, the marketplace often neglects this growing demographic. Recognizing and catering to solo consumers can yield significant opportunities for businesses.
Peter McGraw, University of Colorado Boulder
Doing things alone is on the rise, and businesses should pay more attention to that – even on Valentine’s Day
Every February, Valentine’s Day amplifies what single people already know – that public life is built for two. Restaurants roll out prix fixe menus for couples. Hotels promote “romantic getaway” packages designed for double occupancy. A table for one still invites the question, “Just you?”
Yet there’s irony that’s hard to miss. While Valentine’s Day doubles down on togetherness, more adults are living – and moving through the world – alone.
As a behavioral economist, I study what I call the “solo economy.” A growing share of economic life today is organized around people who live, spend and make decisions on their own.
Half of U.S. adults are unmarried, and one-person households are now the nation’s most common living arrangement. This isn’t a temporary phase confined to young adults waiting to settle down. It includes never-married professionals, divorced empty nesters, widows and widowers, and people who simply prefer to live independently.
Lifelong singlehood is also rising: 25% of millennials and 33% of Gen Z are projected to never marry.
It’s a slow-moving demographic shift away from long-term partnership as the dominant adult life path, but a consequential one – reshaping everything from housing and travel to social policy and commerce. One of its clearest expressions is the number of people doing things alone in public.
It would be one thing if the economy were built for two and solos stayed home. But they are going to museums, traveling and, of course, dining alone in restaurants. To assess this behavior, I surveyed single and married Americans about their participation in 25 activities that occur in public – from shopping and dining to attending movies and concerts.
The pattern was striking. Overall, singles were much more likely to do things alone in public than their married counterparts – 56% versus 39%. The difference held across every activity I measured.
The biggest gaps weren’t for practical tasks like grocery shopping. They were for leisure experiences like going to the movies, dining out and attending concerts. In fact, seven of the 10 largest differences involved retail or entertainment settings – the very places most designed and marketed with couples in mind.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4DWEE/2
Why hasn’t the business world paid more attention to the singles market?
The answer lies in psychology. Some reluctance stems from the belief that other customers will perceive solo diners or moviegoers as sad or lonely. These fears are amplified by what psychologists call the spotlight effect – our tendency to overestimate how much other people notice and judge us.
Findings by consumer researchers Rebecca Hamilton and Rebecca Ratner can help explain why this bias is so persistent. Across studies conducted in the U.S., China and India, people consistently predicted they would enjoy activities less if they did them alone – even though they’d be seeing the same movie or visiting the same museum.
But when people actually went alone, they enjoyed the experience just as much as those who went with others. The fear, it turns out, is largely imagined.
Another problem is that solo consumers don’t always feel welcome.
While behavior is changing, markets have been slower to adapt. Most businesses still design experiences around pairs, families or groups. Consider restaurants that seat solo diners at the bar or near the kitchen or bathrooms, or ticketing systems that require purchasing in pairs. The result is friction for solo consumers – and missed opportunities for companies.
Valentine’s Day promotions make that mismatch especially visible. In 2024, IKEA Canada offered a Valentine’s Day dining experience in its showroom priced and designed for two – and only two – people.
After backlash, the company revised the promotion the following year to be more inclusive: “Bring a loved one, a good friend, or the whole family.” It was a small change, but a revealing one.
Solo consumers represent a large, growing and profitable market segment, yet they’re navigating a marketplace that still treats them as edge cases.
Another study that Ratner conducted with business school professor Yuechen Wu adds an important twist.
Analyses of more than 14,000 Tripadvisor reviews of restaurants and museums show that reviews written by solo diners and solo museumgoers are rated as more helpful – and receive more positive feedback – than reviews written by people who went with others.
Follow-up experiments showed that when otherwise identical recommendations differed only in whether the reviewer experienced the activity alone or with others, respondents were more likely to rely on the solo reviewer when deciding what to do.
Why? Observers infer that people who go alone are more genuinely interested in the experience and more focused on its quality, rather than simply going along with someone else’s preferences.
Being alone, it turns out, functions as a credibility cue. For businesses, that means solo customers aren’t just customers − they can be very influential customers.
Asian businesses are far ahead of the West in recognizing the buying power of people doing things alone.
In South Korea, for example, “honjok,” which translates as “alone tribe,” culture has fueled products and services designed explicitly for solo living. Think single-serve meals at convenience stores, one-person karaoke booths, and restaurants that promise judgment-free service.
Similarly, in Japan, the ramen chain Ichiran built its brand around the idea of “flavor concentration,” which encourages diners to eat alone in private booths.
Officially, the design is meant to eliminate distractions and heighten the dining experience. In practice, it does something more important: It legitimizes solo dining.
In the U.S., Disney theme parks and some of the company’s competitors have long used single-rider lines that reward solo visitors with shorter waits, turning independence into operational efficiency – a logic ski resorts adopted decades ago to fill empty seats on chairlifts.
And solo tourism has become a major trend. Demand is growing, and tour operators are adapting offerings to meet it, including specialized tours for singles and adjustments to historically prohibitive pricing practices.
Industry analysis also shows the global solo travel market expanding rapidly, with tailored products and experiences emerging worldwide. Some companies now offer dedicated solo travel collections with no single supplement − the extra fee traditionally charged to travelers who occupy a room alone − and tours designed specifically for independent travelers.
Valentine’s Day offers a chance to see how outdated many widespread assumptions still are.
It treats solitude as a problem to be solved, even as people’s behavior tells a different story. Yet businesses, policymakers and U.S. culture more broadly have not designed a world that fully acknowledges that about 42% of American adults are single.
In the meantime, singles aren’t waiting at home. They’re out there – at the movies, on planes, in museums and restaurants – moving through public life on their own terms.
Valentine’s Day may always be built for two. But the economy won’t be.
Peter McGraw, Professor of Marketing and Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A viral social media trend called “Chinamaxxing” is turning geopolitics into aesthetic comparison—revealing more about generational frustration than China itself.
Last Updated on February 11, 2026 by Daily News Staff
At first glance, the videos seem harmless enough.
Clean subways gliding into spotless stations. Neon skylines glowing at night. Clips of high-speed trains, cashless stores, orderly crowds. Overlaid text reads something like, “Meanwhile in China…” or “They figured it out.”
This is “Chinamaxxing,” a loosely defined but increasingly visible social media trend where mostly young users frame China as a model of efficiency, stability, and modernity—often in contrast to life in the West.
What makes the trend notable isn’t just its subject, but its tone. Chinamaxxing is rarely explicit political advocacy. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a mood. Aesthetic admiration blended with subtle critique, delivered through short, visually compelling clips that invite comparison without context.
And that’s precisely why it has sparked debate.
Despite the provocative name, Chinamaxxing isn’t a coordinated movement or ideology. It’s better understood as an algorithm-driven pattern—a recurring style of content that rewards certain visuals and emotional cues.
Most Chinamaxxing content emphasizes:
What it typically omits:
The result is a highly curated portrayal—less about China as a nation, and more about what viewers want to believe is possible somewhere else.
The rise of Chinamaxxing says as much about the West as it does about China.
For many young users, particularly Gen Z, the backdrop is familiar: rising housing costs, student debt, healthcare anxiety, political polarization, and a growing sense that institutions no longer function as promised.
In that environment, visually persuasive content showing order and functionality carries emotional weight. It offers relief from chaos—real or perceived.
Social platforms amplify this effect. Short-form video rewards clarity, contrast, and immediacy. A clean subway platform communicates more in five seconds than a policy analysis ever could. Nuance does not trend well. Aesthetics do.
Critics argue Chinamaxxing crosses a line from curiosity into distortion.
By focusing exclusively on infrastructure and surface-level efficiency, the trend risks:
Supporters counter that Western media has long flattened China into a single negative narrative, and that admiration for specific aspects of another society is not the same as endorsing its government.
Both perspectives, however, miss something important.
Chinamaxxing isn’t primarily about China. It’s about disillusionment.
It reflects a generation that:
In this context, China becomes a projection surface—not because it is perfect, but because it appears functional.
That distinction matters.
Chinamaxxing highlights how political understanding is evolving in the digital age. Governance is increasingly consumed not through debate or civic participation, but through comparison clips, memes, and aesthetics.
The risk isn’t admiration. It’s oversimplification.
When complex societies are reduced to visuals alone, public discourse loses depth. But when those visuals resonate, they also signal real unmet needs: stability, competence, and trust in institutions.
Ignoring that signal would be a mistake.
Chinamaxxing is not an endorsement, a conspiracy, or a joke. It is a cultural artifact—one that reflects generational anxiety, algorithmic storytelling, and the widening gap between expectations and reality.
The question it raises isn’t whether China is better.
It’s why so many people feel their own systems are no longer working.
Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more stories exploring internet culture, social media trends, and how digital platforms shape public perception. We’ll be publishing in-depth pieces that break down the societal impact of viral phenomena like Chinamaxxing, the psychology behind online political trends, and the evolving language of Gen Z culture.
Want alerts? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
